Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Uh, no. Not 'presuppose.' That's my understanding of the term. it's what makes 'gods' different from 'really influential men' or 'powerful natural forces.' And i see absolutely no reason not to do so.First, you are presupposing that God is supernatural.
The word you want is 'definition.' You need to supply a 'definition' of gods that may exclude supernatural powers and traits, yet remain recognizable as describing a god.That may be an incorrect assumption.
No. NOW you're redefining god AND evolution to suit your agenda. It's hard to convince people of your theory if you cannot use human words in a manner to express ideas except by saying these words don't really mean what they mean.God may simply be the end of all natural development and, thus, where evolution is leading.
Well, since i haven't 'given' you that, that's meaningless.Second, given that, there is no need to look for a process that moves something from natural to supernatural.
But further, as i understand your thesis, the purpose of the universe is to create God, then God will have the power to travel back in time, and create the universe, or at least create us, so that we can create him. Or Him. This is not a natural being. Your thesis defeats itself.
So, argument by ignorance. I really wish i still had my creationist bingo cards.Third, to make this conclusion, there is no need for me to say exactly how a god would evolve.
Absolutely wrong.Assuming this reality survives to that point and the evolutionary process is not interrupted.
Stop misusing words like that.
The evolutionary process does not work like that.
It doesn't have a goal.
And it only produces traits that are just good enough to get by. Your deity recursion scenario, even if it's true, will not be the result of evolutionary processes. Make up a new term because evolution ain't up to what you need.
You're jumping back and forth between assumption and conclusion, neither of which you're using correctly.If you believe the first answer to "how we came to be?" (random noise), then this assumption should make sense as part of the natural process.
Just say 'fantasy.'
So....WE somehow create God (not evolve, because i have a vocabulary). That omnipotent but still natural God then has the brilliant idea to recreate the universe that just created Him.On the other hand, if you believe the second answer (God creation), then you can feel comfortable that this reality will get to that point as it has already happened (recursion).
Why didn't the created Creator just create Himself at the start of all time?
As you've said, logic fails in the face of omnipotence, but this is just stupid. Having been created once, God then must shoulder the burden of His own creation, which has already been accomplished? Why? Is He hoping that on the second time through He comes out with a bigger dick?